• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
TragicMonkey said:
But of that 23.52635499926245666%, 28.8808% sift through and eat all the raisins first. Then a whopping 87.56% of those don't bother to eat the flakes at all, they just chuck them!
Click to expand...
Hmm, based on those numbers, that
5.94935% of the population. IN other words, 1 out of every 16.808 people is a no good, lousy bran chucker.
 
DOC said:
... modern science believes that all the millions of "plant and animal" species ...
Click to expand...


What gives???

Religion will stick to its position, and Science will adapt as knowledge advances. So nothing happens.
 
I don't know much about abiogenesis, so I can't really adress the scientific details of this matter even on a basic level, but the original point seemed to be that atheists in general would lack interest in what modern science has to say about the origin of life.

As far as I can tell, many theistic communities actively deny what modern science says about the origin of life as we know it today, whereas very few atheists are interested in any other explanation than the ones modern science has to offer. If any atheists at all are unaware of what modern biology has to say about the origin of life, it's likely because they are not interested in the origin of life, not out of lack of respect for modern biology. Theists, however, are usually looking for answers in completely different places, even if those answers conflicts with the biologists'. So "in the Theist/Atheist debate", I'm fairly certain that far more atheists than theists support what modern science says about the origin of life.
 
joobz said:
Hmm, based on those numbers, that
5.94935% of the population. IN other words, 1 out of every 16.808 people is a no good, lousy bran chucker.
Click to expand...

Of those lousy bran chuckers, 37.6398364% also kick cats, 65.384764529% take a penny but never leave a penny, and a full 9.32625% double-dip their chips at parties.
 
JoeEllison said:
What creationist website pointed you to that link?
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave him that link a while back... but it doesn't say what he thinks it's saying... but the general idea is true... all life that we can see shares a common ancestor with all other life we can see. That came from Darwin's theory-- and now molecular genetics and genomic decoding show that this is true. Moreover, it shows us how closely related to organisms are and what their common ancestor most likely looked like and when and where it existed. Very cool stuff. I recommend that anybody pick up Dawkins' the Ancestor's Tale for a basic rundown that is way more informative and evidence packed regarding origins than any silly old primitive text from supposed omniscient invisible entities who, apparently, didn't know squat.

(Doc and similar types who come here always make me feel glad that I'm smart and educated and can understand this cool stuff--that my brain escaped the blight of faith... to me, faith just makes you stupid and arrogant and completely unaware of your stupidity and arrogance--or maybe that's just true of the faith inflicted that preach here.)
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
...snip...

I would estimate that no more than 10 percent of all atheists know that modern science believes that all the millions of "plant and animal" species that have ever existed came from the "same" organism (and that first organism that we all came from was a one celled bacteria).
Click to expand...

How did you come to this conclusion?
 
articulett said:
Actually, I gave him that link a while back... but it doesn't say what he thinks it's saying... but the general idea is true... all life that we can see shares a common ancestor with all other life we can see. That came from Darwin's theory-- and now molecular genetics and genomic decoding show that this is true. Moreover, it shows us how closely related to organisms are and what their common ancestor most likely looked like and when and where it existed. Very cool stuff. I recommend that anybody pick up Dawkins' the Ancestor's Tale for a basic rundown that is way more informative and evidence packed regarding origins than any silly old primitive text from supposed omniscient invisible entities who, apparently, didn't know squat.

(Doc and similar types who come here always make me feel glad that I'm smart and educated and can understand this cool stuff--that my brain escaped the blight of faith... to me, faith just makes you stupid and arrogant and completely unaware of your stupidity and arrogance--or maybe that's just true of the faith inflicted that preach here.)
Click to expand...

I knew he didn't come up with that on his own.
 
The existence, or lacking thereof, of GOD is the central part and only question in the Theist / Atheist debate. Common ancestry may be crucial part of the ID / Darwinism debate. Are you saying that lack of knowledge of the specifics of common ancestry somehow invalidates a disbelief in GOD? If you are going to try a construct a straw man at least make it out of something as tangible as, say, straw.
 
articulett said:
He's speaking about LUCA-- here's what we know so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

Here's some great video podcasts for anyone who is actually interested in knowing what is known... http://www.microbeworld.org/look/videopodcast.aspx

Doc doesn't. His summing up of knowledge is akin to Behe's assertion that evolution is "random". He leaves out the meat so it sounds impossible.
Click to expand...
It has been my understanding that it is impossible to know wether it was a single organism or a collection or community of things that simultaneously arose in the same mix.
 
The Man said:
The existence, or lacking thereof, of GOD is the central part and only question in the Theist / Atheist debate. Common ancestry may be crucial part of the ID / Darwinism debate. Are you saying that lack of knowledge of the specifics of common ancestry somehow invalidates a disbelief in GOD? If you are going to try a construct a straw man at least make it out of something as tangible as, say, straw.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Evangelical Christian Francis Collins will be glad to explain how we know what we know regarding evolution... and even creationist Behe has conceded common descent. Get over the fact we came from primordial slime, DOC,-- how about coming to understand what genetics can show you for certain. Humans share a common ancestor with our other ape kin.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739

Once you grasp this... you will may be able to comprehend what it is we actually can verify due to molecular DNA. It's really cool--worth knowing. And it's something you don't need to be an atheist to understand, either... though it does help if you don't think your eternity depends on your believing the right unbelievable story...

Learn what "science" is really saying. Don't spend the only life you have in ignorance.
 
Darat said:
How did you come to this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Experience -- actually I believe it is much lower than 10%. I was being conservative.

I'm not saying this in a condescending way -- its just that I believe it. What percentage of atheists do you estimate (from your experience) know that all of the millions of plant and animal species descended from the same single organism.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
But... but... he told me he had me on ignore... Christians don't lie, do they?
Click to expand...

Where did I tell you I put you on ignore. And even though you supplied the website, I've seen a similar origin graph in a book. So I knew of this information before.
 
joobz said:
It has been my understanding that it is impossible to know wether it was a single organism or a collection or community of things that simultaneously arose in the same mix.
Click to expand...

Correct... and it's hard to draw the line... since eukaryotic cells are actually organisms filled with "organelles"--the line is hard to draw... but multicelled organisms do share a common ancestor... and we know there were several branches in single celled replication--one of which became eukaryotes. It's very cool when you understand it-- behind the last common ancestor of all humans-- ALL of our ancestors are identical all the way back in time as we meet up with the common ancestors we share with primates and then other life forms... it's the same path backwards over the eons... and it's DNA that proves that this is so. Of course it would have to be so-- given the fact that grandparents multiply exponentially as we go back generations--we'd have run out of all the humans that ever existed if they were all different in less than a 1000 years back in time... There are lots of lowly life forms in a long chain that lead eventually to us and all others in the animal kingdom...of the trillions upon trillions of life forms that came into existence--less than a drop in the ocean have descendants. But look at all the descendants they have!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom